Everything in that list is given in faith, it is simply used inappropriately by some mendicants.It is stored because it is surplus to use at time of offering.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Everything in that list is given in faith, it is simply used inappropriately by some mendicants.It is stored because it is surplus to use at time of offering.

your analogy has no obvious relation to eating meat.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Ben wrote:Keep in mind Dawn that the Buddha was not a vegetarian. He also rejected vegetarianism as a practice for the sangha.No where, in the Tipitaka did the Buddha advocate for vegetarianism for the sangha nor the laity.

It's true.Until i'am lay follower, and can choice my food (but actualy i have no more to give my opinion, because my mother become vegetarian) i will still vegan.But when i will enter is Sangha, i hope it would be possible, i will eat what is givet to my body, if it's a meat, i will eat it full of compation.

In one of Jatakas, Bodhisatta refuse to accept meat like dana. I dont know in wich exactly.

Cittasanto wrote:Everything in that list is given in faith, it is simply used inappropriately by some mendicants.It is stored because it is surplus to use at time of offering.

oh !! i'am realy sorry !"Stored" i read like "Stolen".Sorry, is not good quotation at all.

Cittasanto wrote:your analogy has no obvious relation to eating meat.

Why not?By buying meat, we buy what is stolen, life is stolen and destructed. Life is the most important thing, like a family vase that was stolen, buy, and blowed off.

What would be your reaction when i destruct somethink that was stolen from you, and destructed without any shame?I would like to hear your answer, please dont respond by evasion. What you will do, what will be your reaction?

Cittasanto wrote:Everything in that list is given in faith, it is simply used inappropriately by some mendicants.It is stored because it is surplus to use at time of offering.

oh !! i'am realy sorry !"Stored" i read like "Stolen".Sorry, is not good quotation at all.

well it says stored!

Cittasanto wrote:your analogy has no obvious relation to eating meat.

Why not?By buying meat, we buy what is stolen, life is stolen and destructed. Life is the most important thing, like a family vase that was stolen, buy, and blowed off.

What would be your reaction when i destruct somethink that was stolen from you, and destructed without any shame?I would like to hear your answer, please dont respond by evasion. What you will do, what will be your reaction?

through this logic, as Ben previously noted, you would not eat... at all!

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Ben wrote:Keep in mind Dawn that the Buddha was not a vegetarian. He also rejected vegetarianism as a practice for the sangha.No where, in the Tipitaka did the Buddha advocate for vegetarianism for the sangha nor the laity.

I personally don't feel that we need to use the Buddha as justification for eating meat (or for not eating meat). If we are happy, or don't see it is a problem , to be part of business that is the meat trade then we eat meat but let's take some personal responsibility.

Ben wrote:Keep in mind Dawn that the Buddha was not a vegetarian. He also rejected vegetarianism as a practice for the sangha.No where, in the Tipitaka did the Buddha advocate for vegetarianism for the sangha nor the laity.

I personally don't feel that we need to use the Buddha as justification for eating meat (or for not eating meat). If we are happy, or don't see it is a problem , to be part of business that is the meat trade then we eat meat but let's take some personal responsibility.

As Buddhists who should we follow the example of as a minimum requirement? maybe Krishna, Jesus, Mahavira, Muhammed...?and why assume people don't take responsibility for their actions? why take responsibility for others?

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Ben wrote:Keep in mind Dawn that the Buddha was not a vegetarian. He also rejected vegetarianism as a practice for the sangha.No where, in the Tipitaka did the Buddha advocate for vegetarianism for the sangha nor the laity.

I personally don't feel that we need to use the Buddha as justification for eating meat (or for not eating meat). If we are happy, or don't see it is a problem , to be part of business that is the meat trade then we eat meat but let's take some personal responsibility.

As Buddhists who should we follow the example of as a minimum requirement? maybe Krishna, Jesus, Mahavira, Muhammed...?and why assume people don't take responsibility for their actions? why take responsibility for others?

Seems intellectually dishonest to use Buddha as a justification for a layperson to eat meat. For a monastic to accept meat as Dana, yes, I can see the parallel, but for a layperson who chooses what he or she buys, the "example" does not apply.

I guess the bottom line for me in these debates is that we are so deeply invested in our views on the subject that if would be far more constructive for most of us to stop talking and to look deeply at these views and our attachments to them.

Dan74 wrote:Seems intellectually dishonest to use Buddha as a justification for a layperson to eat meat. For a monastic to accept meat as Dana, yes, I can see the parallel, but for a layperson who chooses what he or she buys, the "example" does not apply.

I guess the bottom line for me in these debates is that we are so deeply invested in our views on the subject that if would be far more constructive for most of us to stop talking and to look deeply at these views and our attachments to them.

Although I see your point examples have been given of laypeople and the Buddha's advise to them, which is what has been sough.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:Everything in that list is given in faith, it is simply used inappropriately by some mendicants.It is stored because it is surplus to use at time of offering.

oh !! i'am realy sorry !"Stored" i read like "Stolen".Sorry, is not good quotation at all.

well it says stored!

Cittasanto wrote:your analogy has no obvious relation to eating meat.

Why not?By buying meat, we buy what is stolen, life is stolen and destructed. Life is the most important thing, like a family vase that was stolen, buy, and blowed off.

What would be your reaction when i destruct somethink that was stolen from you, and destructed without any shame?I would like to hear your answer, please dont respond by evasion. What you will do, what will be your reaction?

through this logic, as Ben previously noted, you would not eat... at all!

DAWN wrote:I asked you for 3 times, you have never give me answer. It's sad.

Good continuation in your practice.With compassion.

eating is not the same as stealing so the answer is not evasive it is simply dealing with the logic involved.and you didn't ask me anything related to eating meat and the op three times.and regarding my practice that is by far not related to this thread or the path to comment in such a way.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

I keep on seeing a lot of eel-wrigglings with this topic. When asked if there's a relationship in between buying the meat (at least in today's marketplace), and others' intention of killing the animals, we only get the answer that they're not responsible.

They refuse to acknowledge (or disacknowledge) the relationship. I think that this kind of habit in eel-wriggling is not useful for the practice, as per the Brahmajala Sutta. I know that the sutta really has more to do with the question of whether or not there is a self... but I think it's still not a good habit.

There also seem to be a lot of inferences that are being drawn to the suttas (or commentaries)... making an attempt to show some kind of relationship (or the lack of it) between the eating of meat and the killing of the animals. I think that this kind of habit should also be discouraged. (See: AN 3.66)

If we still must make some kind of inference, then I think it's a good idea to make sure that it's a wholesome one... i.e., that eating the meat being offered is meant to encourage generosity (which I think would be a blameless inference); not to show that it's OK for us to just allow others to continue the killing, nor to show that there is no relationship at all in between what one eats (especially when he procured what he ate) and the animals being killed. The latter two I think would be seen as unwholesome inferences, at least to a sane person... and I don't see what their usefulness might be at all to the practice. I think they might even be pernicious if the practitioner is unaware of what habits gave rise to these kind of inferences in the first place.

Ben, your suggestion about eating the deceased human remains seems like it might be a good idea on the surface (at least for those who feel like that they must continue to eat meat for the nutrient value)... but I even wouldn't suggest that to them, because of the prions. Most people are likely to gain some kind of serious degenerative disease from that... similar to the mad cow, which was what happened after the farmers fed their cows some ground-up leftover cow parts... as an attempt to save on the cost of feeding them grass, or even grains.

I think that a better suggestion would be to just get your meat from a dumpster, after the supermarket throws out the stuff that no one bought. This might even be a good practice, to study what kind of habits arise... and whether the person would think it's worth it to continue obtaining the meat in such a way, just to sustain himself... especially on a daily basis, considering other alternatives.

Last edited by beeblebrox on Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.

Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.

you had plenty of time to respond earlier if you wanted clarification.

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

Cittasanto wrote:There is a connection on a Business plan level, i.e. the level in which we have no say or control.

Is this an appropriate view of kamma? For example, I think that in this world, everything is stacked even more heavily against a person to attain the complete cessation of greed, hatred and delusion, than to simply not to buy the meat, and to encourage others to do the same.

how is accusing people of murder helpful to the ends thus described; or denying one animals life is just as important as another's (as has been done and boohooed by Tilt)? surely that is just causing hindrances for those who do not see anything wrong with sustaining their body.

Everyone needs to decide for themselves what is practicable for their circumstances. Buying some beef does not equate to slitting a cows throat oneself, particularly when the whole system operates on forecasting based (non-exclusively) on some aspects of what I mentioned. The continuation you omit from the quote shows several factors a slaughter house, supermarket... may use to predict demand and the amount of meat of the different animals they need to meet the specific forecasts, and in some cases there will be over or under ordering for various reasons. Someone may eat meat more or less based on the availability in the shops, but this isn't them demanding meat or killing, the intention is to feed themselves and their family.

Our primary reason to eat is to sustain this body, some may be addicted to the fat content... but some may also be addicted to the morals....

This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!Blog,-Some Suttas Translated,Ajahn Chah."Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."